Britney Spears, Conservatorship and Ableism

[Samson]

It is in the news the Britney Spears is under a probate conservatorship in which her father, Jamie Spears, had control over her person and her estate. She is arguing in court that this should be removed. The most worrying requirements are:

• Required to take Lithium
• Signing of a contract that enforces the performance of a large number of shows, without Britney having control over the content of these shows
• Requiring to have a IUD to prevent pregnancy (which can cause infertility)

The media at least is making out that the exceptional thing here is that she is young: “Conservatorship is a form of court-appointed guardianship typically used for elderly and infirm people”. However this is not true, the age range with most under conservatorships is under 22 (graph below). This report describes a “school-to-guardianship-pipeline,” in which conservatorship over students with intellectual and developmental disabilities leaving school is treated as a matter of course. It seems there is very little discussion about how this influences the rights of those affected, how many people are affected in this way, or any sort of evidence based metrics of outcomes.

I can see that there can be people who need this sort of protection. In particular, vulnerable women who do not have the mental facilities to understand the importance of contraception and/or the ability to enforce its use could be protected by requiring birth control measures. However, it is not clear that the Britney Spears conservatorship is appropriate, and she has loads of money, lawyers and an army of fans. Is there any way we can be confident about the others, when availability of money and therefore legal representation is in the hands of others? We do not even know how many there are, it is estimated to be over 1 million in the US alone. It seems we as a society are coming to understand mental health as less a frightening thing that should be locked away from a society but as a something that we should all be mindful of protecting, in ourselves and others around us.

I really do not know what is going on and what, if anything, is wrong. Just going from the media coverage, the thing that most worries me is that this seems to be treated as a legal rather than medical issue. Why is a judge making this decision rather than a psychiatrist? The decision about mental illness and capacity seems to me a difficult decision to make if you have spent most of your life studying and treating mental disorders. How anyone could be expected to make a better decision than the individual involved without this level of understanding of mental health is beyond me.

Other things that worry me with regards this case specifically:

• Lithium is a really strong drug, that effects peoples day to day life and ability to interact with others and make decisions. It certainly can make peoples lives better, but in the UK this would generally require the patents consent, hospitalisation or an “emergency”. I would expect to enforce its use without the patients consent to be likely detrimental.
• Anyone with any understanding of mental health or Britneys history should understand that for her to be required to perform when she does not feel comfortable doing so would be really bad for her mental health. This alone should be enough to demonstrate that the current arrangements are not appropriate.
• The lack of body autonomy inherent in her requirement to have an IUD is really disturbing. As I say, I can see situations where this would be appropriate, but in what world can it be right to require her to perform in Las Vegas, but not right for her to have children if she explicitly wants them.
• Less about this case in particular, but considering how much the US is into its constitution I do not know how this passes muster under Article One, Section 9.

 

[Senethro]

America just seems have been broadly accepting of stuff like a parents right to send their child to conversion therapy, "reform/rehab" programs or psychiatric imprisonment. A variety of spurious for-profit industries.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's really not. There are "regulars" everywhere. Police bring them in, they get checked out. Police bring them in, they get checked out.

Maybe it's more common in well-mannered society. Dunno. Judges typically will not profit directly from increased diagnoses. We may not rightly consider them experts, and perhaps they should listen to them more. But you really want a judge and not just a doctor involved when rights are being deprived.

 

[Hygro]

She's required to do a huge amount of performances, can't control the money for them, and get's punished if she doesn't work those performances with enough cheer and dedication.

 

[Samson]

It's really not. There are "regulars" everywhere. Police bring them in, they get checked out. Police bring them in, they get checked out.

Maybe it's more common in well-mannered society. Dunno. Judges typically will not profit directly from increased diagnoses. We may not rightly consider them experts, and perhaps they should listen to them more. But you really want a judge and not just a doctor involved when rights are being deprived.

I just do not see any overlap between the skill set required to become a judge (knowing what the law is, and being able to come up with convincing arguments about its application in specific situations) and those required to decide if an individual is capable of making their own decisions. I would agree that the decision making should probably be removed from the profit making bit, but that is a big difference between our countries.

Of course trying to critique a case with only the media to go on is tricky. It could be that the foremost experts in mental capacity are weighing in in the courtroom, and then that may well be an appropriate method. I will bet they are not in the million+ cases around the country.

Britain proved that one with that "we're killing the kid on our terms because we have wants too, F you" case 3-5 years back. Don't remember the name.

That is a good comparison. I also cannot find the right words to google to find the details, but my recollection was that multiple judges decided that doctors were the correct people to estimate A) the probability that moving the child would improve the outcome and B) the suffering the child would undergo. It is a heartbreaking case, even more so I am sure for the doctors involved. However I cannot imagine that any amount of legal training and practice would trump decades of medical training and practice in making that decision.

 

[Hygro]

It's really not. There are "regulars" everywhere. Police bring them in, they get checked out. Police bring them in, they get checked out.

Maybe it's more common in well-mannered society. Dunno. Judges typically will not profit directly from increased diagnoses. We may not rightly consider them experts, and perhaps they should listen to them more. But you really want a judge and not just a doctor involved when rights are being deprived.

I had a friend in solitary for months for not ratting out a friend in a non-criminal 'rehabilitation' center for kids.

 

[Farm Boy]

Sounds like you would have a wanted a judge to intervene there.

Doctors are the keepers of a type of technical knowledge, that knowledge answers "what." Never confuse that with "ought." It's fundamentally different.

 

[Tee Kay]

Farm Boy has a point that judges should have input when a right is being deprived. Theoretically.

The issue is it seems judges are quite keen to lean on the side of depriving rights

 

[Farm Boy]

They sure aren't perfect by a country mile, no. Sometimes they're the problem. But they are, theoretically, the most specialized in their brand of specialized knowledge - application the law once it is adversarial, and the law stands in for the best approximate consensus of "ought" our society has developed to date. I don't see how diminishing their role makes the issue better, or more merciful, but I'm not sure what, if anything, is being bandied about. The Brittany Spears situation is messed up, particularly the set number of performances thing. But I can't think of a situation that goes to court like this that isn't messed to begin with.

 

[Samson]

They sure aren't perfect by a country mile, no. Sometimes they're the problem. But they are, theoretically, the most specialized in their brand of specialized knowledge - application the law once it is adversarial, and the law stands in for the best approximate consensus of "ought" our society has developed to date. I don't see how diminishing their role makes the issue better, or more merciful, but I'm not sure what, if anything, is being bandied about. The Brittany Spears situation is messed up, particularly the set number of performances thing. But I can't think of a situation that goes to court like this that isn't messed to begin with.

I guess I do not see that the decision "Is X capable of making informed decisions" as an adversarial process. At least theoretically everyone is on the same side.

If it cannot be made objectively we should have a good reason not.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It is in the news the Britney Spears is under a probate conservatorship in which her father, Jamie Spears, had control over her person and her estate. She is arguing in court that this should be removed. The most worrying requirements are:

• Required to take Lithium
• Signing of a contract that enforces the performance of a large number of shows, without Britney having control over the content of these shows
• Requiring to have a IUD to prevent pregnancy (which can cause infertility)

The media at least is making out that the exceptional thing here is that she is young: “Conservatorship is a form of court-appointed guardianship typically used for elderly and infirm people”. However this is not true, the age range with most under conservatorships is under 22 (graph below). This report describes a “school-to-guardianship-pipeline,” in which conservatorship over students with intellectual and developmental disabilities leaving school is treated as a matter of course. It seems there is very little discussion about how this influences the rights of those affected, how many people are affected in this way, or any sort of evidence based metrics of outcomes.

I can see that there can be people who need this sort of protection. In particular, vulnerable women who do not have the mental facilities to understand the importance of contraception and/or the ability to enforce its use could be protected by requiring birth control measures. However, it is not clear that the Britney Spears conservatorship is appropriate, and she has loads of money, lawyers and an army of fans. Is there any way we can be confident about the others, when availability of money and therefore legal representation is in the hands of others? We do not even know how many there are, it is estimated to be over 1 million in the US alone. It seems we as a society are coming to understand mental health as less a frightening thing that should be locked away from a society but as a something that we should all be mindful of protecting, in ourselves and others around us.

I really do not know what is going on and what, if anything, is wrong. Just going from the media coverage, the thing that most worries me is that this seems to be treated as a legal rather than medical issue. Why is a judge making this decision rather than a psychiatrist? The decision about mental illness and capacity seems to me a difficult decision to make if you have spent most of your life studying and treating mental disorders. How anyone could be expected to make a better decision than the individual involved without this level of understanding of mental health is beyond me.

Other things that worry me with regards this case specifically:

• Lithium is a really strong drug, that effects peoples day to day life and ability to interact with others and make decisions. It certainly can make peoples lives better, but in the UK this would generally require the patents consent, hospitalisation or an “emergency”. I would expect to enforce its use without the patients consent to be likely detrimental.
• Anyone with any understanding of mental health or Britneys history should understand that for her to be required to perform when she does not feel comfortable doing so would be really bad for her mental health. This alone should be enough to demonstrate that the current arrangements are not appropriate.
• The lack of body autonomy inherent in her requirement to have an IUD is really disturbing. As I say, I can see situations where this would be appropriate, but in what world can it be right to require her to perform in Las Vegas, but not right for her to have children if she explicitly wants them.
• Less about this case in particular, but considering how much the US is into its constitution I do not know how this passes muster under Article One, Section 9.

My five cents:

Lithium is something prescribed for people with bipolar disorder. When people with this disease are not properly medicated, they can (and often do) make wildly irrational decisions. I don't know if she suffers from this condition, but if she does, it's reasonable to require her to take her meds.

The requirement for her to keep performing sounds like a money grab on the part of her father.

The issue of forcing her to be on birth control? If pregnancy would harm her, or if she has some condition that could be passed on to a child, I can see this being reasonable if you assume she's incapable of understanding all this herself.

That said... hasn't she already had a kid? It's not like she doesn't have the means to support a child and/or hire child care (nannies, tutors, etc.). This requirement sounds like a human rights violation, based on her father's notion that if she gets pregnant she'll have to stop performing for a year or two and whoops! There goes the gravy train.

 

[Samson]

Lithium is something prescribed for people with bipolar disorder. When people with this disease are not properly medicated, they can (and often do) make wildly irrational decisions. I don't know if she suffers from this condition, but if she does, it's reasonable to require her to take her meds.

The internet says she has talked about being bipolar. This is not a rare condition, an estimated 2.8% of U.S. adults had bipolar disorder in the past year. Most of them do not lose legal control over their lives. If there is not some hard science behind her lack of ability to make decisions then all that 2.8% of the population have cause to worry. And then what about the 25% who will experience a mental health problem of some kind each year? Is it a judge or a doctor who should be making that decision? Do we want the decision to abide by the hard evidence rules of science or the wishy washy rules of judges, who refuse to even put a number on this "reasonable doubt" on which they build their whole system.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess I do not see that the decision "Is X capable of making informed decisions" as an adversarial process. At least theoretically everyone is on the same side.

If it cannot be made objectively we should have a good reason not.

If somebody is having their rights truncated by society(and in an extraordinarily intimate way, considering what mental health chemical prescriptions do, if mandatory) and they don't want them truncated, how is it possible this process is not adversarial? There is no math equation that can change that, no right right answer.

 

[Narz]

Sounds like parental abuse. I wouldn't think this is right if she was 16 let alone an adult.

 

[Narz]

The internet says she has talked about being bipolar. This is not a rare condition, an estimated 2.8% of U.S. adults had bipolar disorder in the past year. Most of them do not lose legal control over their lives. If there is not some hard science behind her lack of ability to make decisions then all that 2.8% of the population have cause to worry. And then what about the 25% who will experience a mental health problem of some kind each year? Is it a judge or a doctor who should be making that decision? Do we want the decision to abide by the hard evidence rules of science or the wishy washy rules of judges, who refuse to even put a number on this "reasonable doubt" on which they build their whole system.

The medicalization of "abnormal" behavior is just another way to shame people, take away their rights and get them hooked on drugs.

The saddest thing is when people build an identity around mental illness and get angry when alternatives to surrender and lifelong medication are suggested.

I'd be willing to be Britney Spears has more self-awareness than most of the population and her dad is a control freak.

 

[Zardnaar]

Seems odd since she is capable of performing.

I'f she was incapacitated or severely disabled maybe which is what agreements should be used for.

She was a train wreck a few years back but not to the extent requiring this for so long imho.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Seems odd since she is capable of performing.

I'f she was incapacitated or severely disabled maybe which is what agreements should be used for.

She was a train wreck a few years back but not to the extent requiring this for so long imho.

Just before that whole train wreck started she started dating a member of the papparazi. When the train wreck started happening, I was convinced her new boyfriend was getting her hooked on drugs (something new that she wasn't using before, if she used any drugs).

Spears later accused him of conspiring with others to attempting to take over control of her estate.

Cant understand why Spears has to have someone control every aspect of her life, but my parents couldn't get any control over my brother's affairs, when he had learning disabilities and could barely take care of his cat.

 

[Zardnaar]

Just before that whole train wreck started she started dating a member of the papparazi. When the train wreck started happening, I was convinced her new boyfriend was getting her hooked on drugs (something new that she wasn't using before, if she used any drugs).

Spears later accused him of conspiring with others to attempting to take over control of her estate.

Cant understand why Spears has to have someone control every aspect of her life, but my parents couldn't get any control over my brother's affairs, when he had learning disabilities and could barely take care of his cat.

Over here you might get such an arrangement to look after a severely disabled relative. They qualify for welfare but would be incapable of filling out the forms.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Over here you might get such an arrangement to look after a severely disabled relative. They qualify for welfare but would be incapable of filling out the forms.

He had a case worker and someone checking up on him (making sure he keeps his apartment livable, driving him to appointments, grocery shopping, etc.). He did have a part time job sweeping floors, and picked up extra money shoveling driveways and mowing yards.

But he knew a guy who would always visit him and 'borrow' money from him every pay day, with no intention of ever paying him back. We kept telling my brother to tell the guy no, but he always gave the guy money, week after week, month after month. Parents wanted a restraining order against the guy, as my brother would never file it himself. But they couldn't because they were not his guardian.

Application for guardianship denied by judge "He's an adult", but did grant the restraining order.

 

[Cutlass]

Britney has been taken advantage of and abused by essentially everyone she should have been able to trust in her life. Yes, she crashed and burned hard. But the people who pushed her to crash and burn hard are the same people who are profiting themselves at her expense, really since she was a fairly small child.

People have a major financial incentive to abuse Britney, and then claim she's unable to care for herself, and so they should have guardianship over her. This is a travesty.

Maybe she can't take care of herself. Maybe she can. But the people saying that she can't stand to pocket a fudgton of money at her expense by saying that she can't. So who has credibility here?

@Sommerswerd @JollyRoger and I don't know who else here is a lawyer.